Unambiguous JavaScript Grammar

[jdalton]

In the spirit of UnambiguousJavaScriptGrammar I'm wondering if a rule to enforce unambiguous module grammar with least an import or export is of interest?

By the way Babel now supports export {}.

[jamestalmage]

See also: sindresorhus/eslint-plugin-unicorn#41

How would we avoid reporting situations where the user intends it to be a script, not a module?

[jdalton]

@jamestalmage

How would we avoid reporting situations where the user intends it to be a script, not a module?

You wouldn't. This rule would be combo'ed with parserOptions:{sourceType:"module"} and warn if a file doesn't have at least an import or export declaration.

[benmosher]

Sorry, thought I had answered. I think that makes sense. The pair of 👍 's on the issue (before mine) suggest there is some community interest.

Not top of my list, but I'd merge a PR. Also not clear to me if it's likely to land via sindresorhus/eslint-plugin-unicorn#41. I'm fine either way. (didn't mark with PR wanted label ATM, don't want to duplicate effort)

[benmosher]

See sindresorhus/eslint-plugin-unicorn#41 (comment), but I think there should be a rule here, especially given how I've just redefined #270 for v2.

In contrast to the XO rule (and as noted in the comment) the rule here would be something to the effect of This module may parse as a script. Add 'export {}' to ensure module parsing.

Also, I would expect such a rule to ignore a "use strict" and instead refer to the configured parserOptions.sourceType, and report iff it's module.